Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Duck and cover
User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22154
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:50 am

I'd say take every case on it's own merits.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2158
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by OutOfBreath » Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:23 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:OOB--were the slaves freed by a non-violent movement, or did I miss something?

Basically, yes. The trigger in the US was the civil war and policy set by the victor. The groundwork for it was through advocates campaigning for decades and decades for it, harming the legitimacy of the system in the first place. Enlightenment ideas, and the first inklings of concepts of human rights won an audience over time, and an increasing middle class held (and holds) ideas of universality in great regard. (Also, unless I'm mistaken, weren't slavery already almost abolished in the North anyway for practical purposes pre-war?)

(edit) Ah, found a timeline which confirms the idea that the US long before the civil war were part of the international slide towards abolition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline#1800.E2.80.931849

I am in line with ElectricMonk and others here. Changes are most often most lasting and wide-reaching if achieved through gradual reform and opinion changing over time. Revolutions tend to trigger counter-revolutions, setting back the change for decades in some cases. (Think Franco's Spain after defeating republicans/anarchists, Europe's League of absolute kings after Napoleon and so forth.)

Violence may yield more sudden and spectacular changes, but that may also feed a major backlash later. Legitimacy is the core concept here. If rammed through by a minority violently, the majority will not regard it as legitimate and will resist it and possibly overthrow it leading to prolonged struggle.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jan 25, 2016 6:37 pm

OOB---no.

EVERY violent action is preceded by talk.

Now........think past your initial idea and recognize what is undeniable. Slavery was ended by passing the 14th Amendment following the Civil War which was initiated by the South to maintain their system of slavery. doesn't matter at all that the North and European Nations had done away with it.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Jan 25, 2016 6:45 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:The North took the South and drove out the French and the US. Smells like victory to me.



I am not arguing that. But the cost was 2 million dead of his countrymen. When the price is high enough, it is a Pyrric victory. Wars cost human lives, human dignity, human pain and suffering, and destroy economies. IMHO anyone who thinks that kind of victory is worth 2 million dead, and the associated massive suffering of the survivors, is an arsehole.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:05 pm

Lance: its counter history but I agree with you and would bet that if anyone had recognized that the Civil War would cost so many lives..............perhaps.......... slavery would have continued, or the South allowed to secede?

Re Father Ho.....I don't know what he thought Freedom for his people was worth..... and the ultimate death toll is never known. Is the struggle righteous or not appears to be the main driver.

Re Hitler, Mao, Stalin: I'm sure they would sacrifice any and all to their all encompassing goals. Surely the numbers dead in opposition was worth it?

Of course, non violent opposition is best............but what do you advise when its not working?

"wenn du weißt, was ich meine"
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:19 pm

There are always arseholes driven by so-called 'causes' who claim no human cost is too high. That includes people in the west also. Remember "better dead than red"? But, as OOB pointed out, a lot of social change is a function of gradual evolution. If something is genuinely worth while, there is a damn good chance it will happen anyway.

Ideologues who turn to violence are, IMHO, enemies to humanity.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by ElectricMonk » Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:53 pm

I know I sound like a total bastard but:

people are a renewable resource. It's much easier to change a society if those most opposed to change are dead.

This is no justification for an 'end-justifies-means' approach - if revolutionaries can use that motto, so can the counter-revolutionaries.

But it means that resistance might have to wait for a generation to retire or die before anything can be accomplished.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22154
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:05 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:The North took the South and drove out the French and the US. Smells like victory to me.



I am not arguing that. But the cost was 2 million dead of his countrymen. When the price is high enough, it is a Pyrric victory. Wars cost human lives, human dignity, human pain and suffering, and destroy economies. IMHO anyone who thinks that kind of victory is worth 2 million dead, and the associated massive suffering of the survivors, is an arsehole.

Sorry, but I don't buy that Pyrrhic stuff. They won and they're happier now. I know they were dedicated, I killed a bunch of them myself.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2158
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by OutOfBreath » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:14 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:OOB---no.

EVERY violent action is preceded by talk.

Now........think past your initial idea and recognize what is undeniable. Slavery was ended by passing the 14th Amendment following the Civil War which was initiated by the South to maintain their system of slavery. doesn't matter at all that the North and European Nations had done away with it.

Formally passing a Law legally ends it of course, but I'm not referring to the legal process blessing what had been accomplished. (The real victory is always way ahead of the law)

Slavery ended because of a long campaign with roots in the enlightenment which gathered speed when the slave trade was outlawed around 1800, prominantly be Britain after a long abolitionist campaign. (The US was also part of that) Slavery ended more quickly than it otherwise would have because of the civil war ramming it through. But I can't really envision an alternative historical scenario where slavery in the US would not have ended at some point, and probably before 1900. Then again, maybe the southern states would never have given up their slave economy voluntarily, and som war would either way happened at some point. Who knows.

My point is that wars can only promote ideas and rules that are already prevalent in some form. The move away from slavery started long before the american war and was moving forwards in increments all the time. Those advocating and campaigning against slavery are the ones that made it end, because of the loss of legitimacy that happened over a long time frame. The war only hastened the process. The cost is that abolition was forced on the resentful Southern states which then quickly adopted segregation as a mechanism to keep controlling former slaves right up until the 1960s. Again, perhaps virtually inavoidable in the end, but who knows.

Tyranny never ends because of violence alone. That only replaces one tyranny with another. Some erosion of authority must happen through some medium to spread the notion that the ruler is no longer legitimate. Which is why assasinations never work, unless the ruler was becoming deeply unpopular (the legitimacy argument again). Otherwise the assasin is just another tyrant most often.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
psychiatry is a scam
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1413
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:23 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by psychiatry is a scam » Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:14 pm

is there ever non violent resistance ? sometimes victims do not fight back , but there is still violence

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:18 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:[
Sorry, but I don't buy that Pyrrhic stuff. They won and they're happier now. I know they were dedicated, .


That statement is based on an uncontrolled experiment. In other words, we do not not know how the alternative would have panned out. The only thing we can say for sure is that the alternative would not have involved 2 million people dying prematurely.

My speculation, based on what we have seen elsewhere, is that Viet Nam would have evolved towards a democratic government with human rights, and a SE Asia 'tiger' economy.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22154
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:04 pm

I don't got no crystal balls.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:20 am

Neither do I, which is why I called it a speculation. It would be wrong for me to assert that my vision would definitely be correct.

But it is equally wrong to suggest that the violence of the Viet Nam war was needed.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22154
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:44 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Neither do I, which is why I called it a speculation. It would be wrong for me to assert that my vision would definitely be correct.

But it is equally wrong to suggest that the violence of the Viet Nam war was needed.

I'm a historian, so I'll go with what actually happened.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:13 am

Historians are also vitally concerned with causes of events, and 'what if' questions about how things would turn out if those causes were different.

I see most wars as unnecessary. I am sufficiently cynical to think that they are caused by men of wealth and power who want more wealth and power. Then there is the rationalisation. This is the propaganda generated by those men to persuade others to become cannon fodder. So we get wealthy people in the American colonies who want to kick out the British because they can make more money without them, and aspire to gaining power in the new nation. But they tell the ordinary citizens it is all about freedom.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:34 am

I'm thinking there are two main types of settings for opposition. One is within one's own country, the other is one country invading another. The first involves the question of how bad the gubment is and how long its abuses can be tolerated with a judgement call as to whether violence or non-violence would be more effective over the time given.

The second example almost always brings forth a violent response....until one countries military is defeated and then the "our country" scenario is presented again.

Many people dying for what only a few people want is the very nature of history. It hoomans: organizing ourselves and the heavens too into hierarchical pyramid schemes. Change, always difficult.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jul 08, 2016 11:20 pm

Seems to me the current Cop Sniping/Murder in Dallas highlights this issue? How many years has peaceful demonstrations resulted in nothing but an increasing rate of murder of Blacks by Cops? NOW...we have a violent reaction, and I do assume with more to follow. Perhaps even if only suicide by cop...but first take a few with you?

Now.........it would be ideal/nice if society would PAY ATTENTION to the abuse that is readily apparent...but silly hoomans. don't. We need a noise or bright light to bring out attention to bear. Cop Murders will do that. So far.... on the tube...all I've heard is how horrible this is for the cops. NO CONNECTION to why it may have happened.................oops!==>on MSNBC right now, violence in video games was given the nod. How cute.

No....HOPEFULLY, this incident will cause more attention to what murder BY cops will eventually cause in the genereal population. Seems to me the MOST likely changes will come when there is the combo plate: peaceful demonstrations with threat "by other groups" of violence in the failure to do so. ESPECIALLY when DECADES of peaceful demonstrations has gotten the movement NO WHERE...except to be labeled a protest movement?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
psychiatry is a scam
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1413
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:23 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by psychiatry is a scam » Sat Jul 09, 2016 1:53 am

the gruesome reality of racist south Africa / frontpage mag / fpm
http://www.frontpagemag.com/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/180781/ ... old-ahlert

this will be the solution

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:29 am

Bobbo

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting that peaceful protests have resulted in more cops killing African Americans? If so, I suggest you get some evidence together.

User avatar
psychiatry is a scam
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1413
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:23 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by psychiatry is a scam » Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:46 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting that peaceful protests have resulted in more cops killing African Americans? If so, I suggest you get some evidence together.



what is a peaceful protest ? no cops getting hurt ?
doubt if the cops working crowd control consider any of these protests peaceful . living hell would be a better descriptive .

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/180781/ ... old-ahlert

but facts are nice , and graphs ; like graphs . so it is a good question

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jul 09, 2016 5:14 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting that peaceful protests have resulted in more cops killing African Americans? If so, I suggest you get some evidence together.

I wouldn't phrase it that way....but ....................JUST LOOK.......... and it parses that way. All concommitant threads that can be untwined to get to some probably causations.

So............closer to a casual statement: the peaceful activism for more public oriented police interactions has failed to have any general effect, some localized one's such as in Dallas have shown it can work, but too few jurisdiction care to make such changes.

Yet to be seen if violent attacks from the public will encourage such changes or increase the paranoia of cops making it even worse.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 09, 2016 5:31 am

The law of reciprication implies that if protests get violent, the response will also be violent. Violent protestors = violent police.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by ElectricMonk » Sat Jul 09, 2016 5:55 am

Yet, non-violent protest has not caused most police departments to improve training and accountability: there is no database on police shootings.
Dallas will cause some rethinking, though it will probably just be asking Homeland for more tanks instead of better training and community outreach.

Non-violent resistance works best if the opposition is aware that violence is an option.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jul 09, 2016 7:05 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The law of reciprication implies that if protests get violent, the response will also be violent. Violent protestors = violent police.

Yes.................. and then what happens? Hint: what I've said 3-4 times now and what EM said just above. Its the dialectic progression....at least a new premise every day. Its a process ongoing to win, lose, or draw. Seems you want to upset the chess board on the taking of the 4th or 5th pawn?????? But the game is more complex than that.

Just look.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Paul Anthony » Sat Jul 09, 2016 6:42 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:

Non violent opposition fails when it turns violent. The current war in Syria is an example. It began with non violent protest, but after the arsehole Assad killede about 100,000 protestors, it turned really, really nasty.


Right. Why doesn't that count as a failure for non-violent resistance? Non-violent resistance only works when BOTH SIDES are non-violent.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 09, 2016 8:31 pm

Paul

It is very common for a non violent protest to be met with a violent response. If you look at Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi, and their campaigns, you will see this happening more than once. But they stuck to their principles of non volence and won in the end. No one said non violence was easy. Indeed, there are martyrs to non violence, killed by a violent response to non violence. But non violence turns out to be more effective in the end, and achieves its goal at much, much lower cost.

Take the Arab Spring. Four nations involved. Two were non violent - Tunisia and Egypt, and two were violent - Libya and Syria. Tunisia and Egypt overturned their tyrant and now have democracy of sorts (still needs development, of course.). Libya got its tyrant killed but is still a mess, with competing militias killing each other off. No stability, and so dangerous that hundreds of thousands of Libyans are crossing the Med and often dying, to escape. Syria, of course, is the ultimate indictment against violent attempts to overthrow a tyrant.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jul 09, 2016 9:12 pm

I like those examples Lance....but wasn't Egypt more than anything else accomplished with the conivance of USA being highly influential with the "real power" of Egypt...the military? Its as if non-violence will work but "usually" only when other factors are at play as well? And that is not to demean the non-violent approach as there are always multiple factors at play.

maybe a good question is: how many martyrs to die before one admits defeat? Not a single "rule" for all situations?....otherwise, we'd all be speaking German now?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jul 09, 2016 9:17 pm

Lance: this issue is real right now in the USA. Blacks being oppressed all through slavery and many would say even now. some say the civil war was not necessary as the abolition movement was growing and economic factors making slavery unprofitable were in play as well. Course...the CW was fought to maintain the Union...but how about now? How many blacks to be murdered by cops before one might recommend, rather than just expect, violence by the Blacks to be part of the mix? To me.....this is very parallel to the IRA fight against Britain. Non-violence given decades to work and it fails until the threat of violence gives it a nudge???
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:00 pm

Bobbo

You are correct to point out that more than one factor is at work in every case. But non violence has a much, much, much better record of achieving its goals than violence.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11291
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by OlegTheBatty » Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:04 pm

Dunkirk, Dieppe and Pearl Harbor do not mean that we lost WWII.

Non-violent strategies may lose battles, but that doesn't mean they lose the war.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:21 am

Oleg

This is not about such wars. This is about a people overthrowing their tyrant. Obviously non violence is inappropriate if one nation is attacked by another. The USA was correct in declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbour, and throwing everything it had into defeating them. The Pacific War is America's 'finest hour'. It is a shame that the military and politicians, morons every one, decided that this victory justified going to war against a whole bunch of other nations.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 10, 2016 3:29 am

Lance--"we" have a terrible definitional ambiguity here. I agree with the Nation vs Nation WAR as being inapplicable...but what about Hard Core Tyrants that are not going to give in?

Should you still use non-violence EXCLUSIVELY when its pretty clear its not going to work NOW...or for a very long time??? So...it make sense to me you use non-violence to begin with FOR EVERY MOVEMENT/ISSUE THERE IS. "Please give me all your marbles." If the society is ripe for change, you get all the marbles. If the Tyrant doesn't want to go....you get violence as the response. Still I would say use non-violence as it will change a negligble few of the Tyrants......BUT ....... it will speak to other interests around the world who may bring pressure to the Tyrant to change, step down, get overthrown. I'll even give non-violence the nod here. But then...we have so many well known Tryants who will not give up power until killed themselves.

How many times has non-violence worked in these cases that are most relevant to the issue/concept????? And I say: close to zero.

Like almost every issue: you don't have ONE ANSWER for all scenarios. You actually have to have analysis of what works and what doesn't work. NOT what works most of the time....the issue at hand is not most of the time....its the actual issue at hand.

Its just too simple minded to always have one and only one answer/response. Its the difference between checkers and chess.

EDIT: Seems to me you use violence against Tyrants for the same reason Nation States do against other Nation States in War: they ain't gonna stop killing you unless you kill them.

Dare I say: you have to............. Look?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Jul 10, 2016 4:55 am

Bobbo

You may be right, but that idea is dangerous!

The very attitude that you might fix a problem with violence is dangerous. I think you can see why.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 10, 2016 5:00 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

You may be right, but that idea is dangerous!

The very attitude that you might fix a problem with violence is dangerous. I think you can see why.

LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNCCCCCCCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

Whats more "dangerous" ((and to whom?)). DEALING with reality....................... or denying it?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 10, 2016 5:09 am

I wonder if we are making a huge error is constructing the issue(s) as bi-polar, or digital, or either-or, or Fallacy of Two Choices.....there is at least a third way for all issues?

Put up with it.

I don't know if that is excluded by choice or lack of recognition. "Keep your head down and your powder dry." Know when to fight and when to submit." Don't fight wars you can't win....... etc. Seems to be missing from the mix when both "non-violence" and violence gets your side killed................. for what? But again........that requires analysis and not a simple rule.

Poor Lance.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Jul 10, 2016 5:32 am

Bobbo

Recent experience (the last 50 years) shows that non violence is almost always the strategy of choice. If it turns out that in one case in 100 violence is better, then we would be most irresponsible to recommend that.

The only times I can think of that a violent approach led to a desirable outcome without too much cost, is when the people overthrowing the tyrant had the support of a powerful outside force. If you look at examples like the IRA, you see multiple decades of suffering before sanity prevails. Don't go there!

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 10, 2016 5:42 am

Yeah Lance...........thats all been said x3.

Is the implication that you can't think your way out of an open ended paper bag?

A true believer: only has one idea.

.................................................................. Just Look.

((How many Wars/Police Actions/Genocides in the last 50 years???===So....blind to actual facts as well? Indeed..... a true believer. Ooops....scratch "wars" and "police actions"....gee, how easy it is to get trapped in rutty ways of not-thinking?))

Actually........it might be instructive to look up Gandhi's specific thoughts on facing an implacable Tyrant. Did he really recommend certain death....on principle? pros and cons: certain death vs putting up with it. I know I'd rather be Red than Dead...citizen of the World that I am.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 10, 2016 8:38 am

Well....I was right. Reading up a bit on Gandhi is quite interesting. As always, more complex and even different than what I thought. A longer read here http://www.markshep.com/peace/Myths.html

About half way into it: "The belief that civil disobedience succeeded by converting the opponent happened to be a myth held by Gandhi himself. And it’s shared by most of his admirers, who take his word for it without bothering to check it out." /// But don't lose heart, it really comes around to re-inforce the effectiveness of non-violence.

I see Gandhi thinks "Put up with It" is the worst response to need for change.....figures. Reading as much of the link as I did....I gotta say I'd rather go down fighting......than just go down. I guess, I'm the type Gandhi would use violence on. You have to read the link to see what I'm saying is correct. "Gandhi was not non-violent against everybody......" ((True statement, but misleading...))
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Jul 10, 2016 8:50 am

Bobbo

I had a look at your reference. It does not obviate anything I said. A lot of people practicing non violence can be said to be violent towards themselves. A lot of non violent proponents become martyrs. But the key thing is that they do not take up arms against a perceived enemy. Mahatma Gandhi, and many other people used what your reference calls passive resistance, or what I called non violence. It works, where violent resistance leads to horrors.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 10, 2016 10:15 am

A belief or a mantra?

Do you think anything said that is "different" from what you say/think is a disagreement or an attempt to obviate?

....................................... or might it expand your appreciation?

Nothing in the article obviated what I said either..... but I'd want to read again as I recall something speaking against an aspect of what I have posted in this thread...but it might have been another of the few articles I read.

Be a bit more flexible and open to other ideas. it would make your own ideas that much stronger.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?